why doesn't suffering spark real positive change in poor states and countries?

[Hardkill]

Substantial government progress often necessitates catastrophic events or widespread hardship because voters tend to be reactive, typically demanding change only after experiencing significant difficulties.

So, why hasn't such urgently required transformation in leadership and governance been occurring in impoverished states like West Virginia, Wyoming, Mississippi, Alabama, or Arkansas, where numerous individuals in those regions are struggling very badly in various ways including the economy, infrastructure, and education?

For that matter, why hasn't the tremendous suffering in impoverished countries, particularly in many parts of Africa and the Middle East, been enough to catalyze meaningful reforms in leadership and governance, thereby improving the economy, infrastructure, and education of those countries?

Edited yesterday at 01:05 AM by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

Suffering by itself is not enough to improve a system. You must also have the resources and infrastructure to make the improvements.

Underdeveloped places are mired in profound corruption which has no quick solution.

It's like a drug addict -- he suffers a lot but doesn't have the resources to help himself. Suffering is just his way of life. There's not even an option.

The more dysfunctional a system is, the harder it is to fix. And some systems are so dysfunctional they cannot be fixed.

Edited yesterday at 09:52 AM by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

21 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Suffering by itself is not enough to improve a system. You must also have the resources and infrastructure to make the improvements.

Underdeveloped places are mired in profound corruption which has no quick solution.

It's like a drug addict -- he suffers a lot but doesn't have the resources to help himself. Suffering is just his way of life. There's not even an option.

The more dysfunctional a system is, the harder it is to fix. And some systems are so dysfunctional they cannot be fixed.

Ah!

That's what I thought when I asked you before about what you said in your 'How Society Evolves' video and how suffering ties into that:

So, all of the major factors that are involved in developing a country are:

• Infrastructure
• Resources
• Economy
• Education per capita
• Culture and views of each current generation
• The country suffering nationwide from a serious crisis
• The people witnessing the struggles and suffering of certain marginalized groups

Edited 11 hours ago by Hardkill

[Sincerity]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Suffering by itself is not enough to improve a system. You must also have the resources and infrastructure to make the improvements.

Underdeveloped places are mired in profound corruption which has no quick solution.

It's like a drug addict -- he suffers a lot but doesn't have the resources to help himself. Suffering is just his way of life. There's not even an option.

The more dysfunctional a system is, the harder it is to fix. And some systems are so dysfunctional they cannot be fixed.

I don't think it's really about the resources, but a genuine will with openness to change. A willingness to die, if you will. Desire alone is not enough, one also has to be open to fundamentally do things differently and be different, which really feels like dying. It's very uncommon for people to want to die.

A drug addict will often squander any resources he's given. Whereas a person with a strong will and true openness to possibilities would most likely pull something out of nothing.

When there's a TRUE will, there's a way. By true I mean willing to do ANYTHING.

A country-level willingness to die is even more unlikely than a single person's I think.

Edited yesterday at 06:37 PM by Sincerity

[BlueOak]

Have you ever suffered something and not changed the outcome for the better? 

I have.

Both when i've tried multiple times without success and the times I haven't tried at all. This reasoning scales up to the macro level, which lets you check its validity.

Edited 22 hours ago by BlueOak

[Leo Gura]

11 hours ago, Sincerity said:

I don't think it's really about the resources, but a genuine will with openness to change. A willingness to die, if you will. Desire alone is not enough, one also has to be open to fundamentally do things differently and be different, which really feels like dying. It's very uncommon for people to want to die.

A drug addict will often squander any resources he's given. Whereas a person with a strong will and true openness to possibilities would most likely pull something out of nothing.

When there's a TRUE will, there's a way. By true I mean willing to do ANYTHING.

A country-level willingness to die is even more unlikely than a single person's I think.

The analogy breaks down because a nation or a party is a system more than an individual. These are systemic problems that cannot be willed out of.

Edited 12 hours ago by Leo Gura

[AION]

38 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The analogy breaks down because a nation or a party is a system more than an individual. These are systemic problems that cannot be willed out of.

It is the old guard that keeps the structural problems in tact. A country usually changes when the old guard dies out. 

[BlueOak]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The analogy breaks down because a nation or a party is a system more than an individual. These are systemic problems that cannot be willed out of.

Both sentences are true of people's body/mind/life also. Sure they are individuals, but they have some challenges that cannot be changed, and a system that works as what we call an individual.

Moreover, the reason a country doesn't often collapse is if you put challenges across enough people, things tend to balance better or support each other either intentionally or not, there is usually more natural competitive and collaborative adaptation rather than an individual's judged success or failure day to day. Just by the systems in place for the country to do so. The death of a country when it rarely comes is from things like the currency and cultural bonds breaking down, ripping out the things that glue the country together.

I'd say the same about the human body/mind, it's remarkably good at adapting to things, so you are not going to die often.

The problem is often the connection of the individual to the country; that's where things can fall on their face. This probably answers the OP's question. An individual can suffer and never affect the country much one way or the other, sometimes they do of course.
 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by BlueOak

[Breakingthewall]

Sometimes a culture has the character and the will necessary for radical change. In Europe, after centuries of misery, the Enlightenment initiated an upward movement. In China, the terribly violent leap forward was necessary to awaken a civilization from its lethargy. Japan went from the Middle Ages to modernity with the collective imperialist madness that metamorphosed into industrial religion after the apocalypse.

Other countries have not made this leap in which the whole society acts as a single individual, normally with unleashed violence, and leaps forward.